If the problem is asylum-seekers, the solution must not be identity cards

MATTHEW PARRIS

Dear Sir, am I alone in thinking.

As a preamble to a reader's letter, or the opening sentence in a hack columnist's weekly offering, 'Am I alone in thinking... ?', 'Can I he the only one.., ?' and 'Surely I am not the only person to have observed.. . ? ' may be stale journalism, but they are often useful early pointers to those curious chasms which arise between what the powers-that-be seem to see, and what the rest of the world thinks it sees. If the little boy impertinent enough to inquire about the absence of the emperor's clothes were alive today and writing to the Daily Mail, his letter would probably have started 'Surely I cannot be alone in noticing..

A kindred spirit of that child wrote recently to the Times about the Red Cross refugee camp at Calais. That these poor folk had a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin, he said, he was able to persuade himself. But why were they so desperate to get out of France? I am not clear that ministers have addressed themselves to this question.

Perhaps we should. Why is Britain so much more attractive to, for instance, an Iranian, than Italy or France, that he will hang around for months near Calais in the hope of jamming himself into the undercarriage of a passing train? Few of the explanations usually offered sound helpful. The English language,' one sometimes hears, is what makes us a magnet to those who have learnt English where they come from. But reports and interviews from Calais do not suggest that many of these would-be refugees can speak it.

Our economy, it is true, is a little more buoyant at present than some of those over the Channel; but things are not at all bad at present in France, and rather better in Spain; and one of the consequences of the 'social chapter' oncosts and red tape which surround job opportunities on the Continent is that there is a vigorous grey-market in unofficial employment.

Another argument sometimes canvassed is that because there are already thriving non-European communities in London in particular, these attract relatives, friends, coreligionists and countrymen to try their chances here too. But for reasons of history France and Spain (for example) both have huge Muslim populations settled there legally. Parts of Marseilles, Barcelona and Paris have a polyglot flavour to match what one

encounters in parts of England. I see no reason why Paris should feel any stranger to an Iraqi or Iranian than London would. To most of those huddled at Calais, I suspect, any European town on either side of the Channel probably feels pretty alien; but in any large city they would find those who spoke their language.

Are we then, as Ann Widdecombe repeated this week, 'a soft touch'? Is it simply that would-be immigrants believe they are less likely to be sent home from Britain?

In this there must surely be something; worrying numbers are quoted by Miss Widdecombe of those who on being refused political asylum 'slip away', as she puts it, into the crowd and are never physically coerced back to the airport. Once you're actually on British soil (she thinks they believe at Calais) you've made it. Their behaviour does seem to suggest this; for many it may be true; and it must be the case that few would-be asylum-seekers are ready to acknowledge this as their reason for choosing Britain, so the explanation would not emerge from any survey.

That, anyway, is the Tory view; nor are we short of voices, some rather less agreeable than others, to express it. Ministers, I notice, never really engage with the theory, which suggests they think it may be true.

But if ministers fall silent at the mention of the 'soft touch' theory, there comes a point, rather later, at which shadow ministers lapse into silence too. Opposition spokesmen say the solution is 'secure' reception centres for asylumseekers, by which, if they mean anything, they must mean we should imprison them. They do not mention that there is a way of keeping tabs on people which is infinitely cheaper than physical incarceration, and it is already in effective operation (or believed by refugees to be in effective operation) in France, Italy, Spain and most of the European Continent.

Am I alone in thinking that one reason would-be immigrants are hopeful of melting into the crowd in Britain is that we do not have identity cards here?

I hate identity cards. I detest the whole idea. My detestation is emotional rather than rational and, challenged to say why such a sensible proposal is anathema to me, I am hard put to defend myself. Many people of a conservative disposition in Britain think otherwise, and if we have heard the argument 'why as a law-abiding citizen should I have anything to fear from being asked by a policeman to show him my identity card?' once, we have heard it a hundred times.

Forced to assemble the best case I can against the proposal, I suppose I would have to say that we must never assume that the state will always be benign or that it may not seek to interfere heavy-handedly in the personal liberties of movement and of association which underpin our individual freedom; and that a compulsion on every citizen to possess and carry a means of identification would immensely assist a bullying state.

I would add that the advance of information technology will soon make feasible the assembly, right across the range of government departments, of everything the state knows about each citizen — accessible by the swiping of a single magnetic strip. We should do all we can to thwart this progress. It is hard to resist in logic because it gives the state no power which, in theory, existing legislation does not already give; it simply facilitates enormously the use of these powers.

Logic having failed us, obstructivism is therefore our only recourse, and the first thing we must obstruct is the onward march, across the European Continent, of the compulsory national identity card.

Am I alone, then, in observing that our cause — those of us who hate the idea — is facing a huge potential blow in the form of a knock-down and easily popularised new argument for the introduction of such a card?

Sooner rather than later a struggle will be taking place within the breasts of lain Duncan Smith and David Blunkett between their natural authoritarianism, and their native suspicion of ideas emanating from Brussels. May their native suspicion triumph!

Matthew Pan-is is a political columnist of the Times.